no such qualifications were required in the officers; and the men were liable to the utmost severity of martial law, on the least appearance of a riot the former raised no supplies, the intent of the latter was to raise them independently of parliament.

In reply to Lord Wycomb, Mr. Pitt contended, that whatever could be alleged for the justification of the former of these measures, squally justified the latter: the former, far from precluding subscriptions, was so much understood to recommend them, that the county of Surrey, whichalready maintained a considerable body of men by subscription, on receiving that letter, construed it into a recommendation of that tendency, and actually added three companies by means of new subscriptions: no exceptions however were taken at this proceeding. When several regiments had been raised by noblemen in their private capacity, for the service of government, in 1745, Lord Hardwicke, a name of the first authority, decided the lawfulness of the transaction. If a dozen noblemen were authorized to employ their funds in this manner, why should not some hundreds of loyal subjects be allowed to do the same? Subscriptions for the public service carried nothing dangerous in them; and subjects ought, in reason, to be at liberty to apply their property to so laudable a use. The statutes formerly enacted against that method of levying money, called a Benevolence, were in fact a real relief to the people, by shielding them from arbitrary exactions. But were free and voluntary donations to be classed with tyrannical extortions? The subscriptions now proposed VOL. XXXVI.

would, besides their general utility, produce an effect of particular con. sequence at this critical time: they would convince the French that the English went heart and hand with government.

Mr. Fox animadverted severely on this latter argument. Far, said he, from operating to that end, the subscriptions would probably tend to confirm the French in their idea, that the majority of the nation disapproved of the war, from the inconsiderable number of subscribers when compared to the multitudes that would not subscribe. Two descriptions of men might reasonably be expected to refuse: those who looked on the measure as unconstitutional, and those who denied the good policy of the war. They were both extremely numerous, and yet as firmly inclined and ready to oppose the aggression of a foreign enemy, as the warmest adherents to ministry.

In addition to the plan of raising an internal force by voluntary subscriptions, Mr. Pitt brought a proposal before the House on the 7th of April, to enable the subjects of France to enlist in the King's service on the continent of Europe, and to employ French officers as engineers, under certain restrictions. Many advantages, he was of opinion, might result from such a measure, considering how deeply they were interested in our success, and how zealously they were attached to the cause for which we were contending. Two amendments to this proposal were moved: the first by the Attorney-General, to oblige these who enlisted, to take the oath of allegiance; the second, by Mr. Sheridan, to limit the operation of the bill to twelve months, the term

R

to which the mutiny bill was confined. The former of these amendments was adopted; the latter rejected by a majority of 97.

Mr. Sheridan succeeded however in proposing, that no greater number of these troops should be stationed within the kingdom than

5000.

But on the second reading of the bill, it was most strongly opposed by Mr. Baker, on account of its wanting a specific statement of the numbers to be enlisted, and its allowing them to be quartered on British ground. Mr. Sheridan now declared himself against the bill, and among other motives, alleged the certain death awaiting these men, if defeated; asking, at the same time, whether in such case we could venture to retaliate? Mr. Burke immediately replying in the affirmative, was vehemently reproved by Mr. Sheridan, for letting fall an expression that might prove so fatal to our own troops, and lead to scenes of reciprocal bloodshed, unprecedented in the wars between Europeans. He strongly insisted on the danger of committing to the disposal of the crown an aimy of 50 or 60,000 men, all strangers and sworn enemies to the very name of liberty.-Mr. Burke's answer was full of asperity towards the present, and of praise of the late government of France: and he concluded it by asserting, that if the property wrested, in France, from its ancient owners, were not restored to them, property would not exist ten years longer in England. The motion was carried by a majority of 185.

The commitment of the bill was carried by a majority of 102. When it came to a third reading, it was again opposed by Mr. Farrison,

who remarked that it was highly imprudent, while we were under the apprehension of being invaded by the French, to put arms into the hands of those multitudes of emigrants in England, who might very probably be tempted, by the hope of pardon, to join their countrymen.

He was seconded by Mr. Fox, who considered the bill as an engagement on the part of this country, to restore to the emigrants the possessions from which they had been ousted, and to re-establish the ancient government: but so ardu. ous an attempt must not only prolong the war, but render it so bloody and destructive, as to alienate the two nations from each other, in a degree that neither prudence nor humanity could justify. The successes that might attend our arms would not alter the sentiments of the French: they were indif ferent about their distant settlements, while they preserved France itself. They were not fighting for remote objects; their safety at home, and their independence of foreign masters, occupied them entrely. To conquer such a peuple, we must attack them in their own country; it was there only we could bring them to subjection. But would any man, not bereaved of reason, recommend such an attempt? Why, therefore, should we so much forget past experience, as to imagine that, after the most resolu e as well as the most numer. ous bodies of royalists had repeatedly failed in their endeavours to resist the French government, we should be more likely to succeed through the help of an inconsidera able number that had fled their country, and whose prowess had not been tried?. Notwithstanding

the

the advantageous descriptions of France under the monarchy, he too, said Mr. Fox, had travelled in that country, and could with truth affirm, that the circumstances of the peasantry were wretched and miserable to a degree not exceeded by that of the poorest inhabitants of any part of Europe. Dreading to be reduced to that deplorable situation, could they refrain from indignation and fury, when they were told that the powers in the coalition against France had taken up arms for the avowed purpose of forcing them back to that state of misery?

In answer to Mr. Fox, it was alleged by Mr. Dundas, that the present rulers of France could not be viewed as possessed of any stable power. If appearances could be credited, they were not less hated than dreaded by the generality of the people. Were these well assured of being supported, it was the opinion of good judges, that they were ripe for an insurrection against the republicansystem. It would, therefore, be wanting to ourselves to omit the opportunity of trying what might be effected by embodying those numerous emigrants that had long testified a desire of being employed in some enterprize against the usurpers of power in their own country, and to restore its ancient government. An enterprize of this kind was the more deserving of encouragement, that none could be so web acquainted with the means of forwarding it in France; natives of that country, conversant in all its affairs, and in possession of numerous connexions, united to them by relation or friendship, and above all, by an identity of sentiments on the transactions of the

times. But a motive, paramount to all others, for using our utmost efforts to compel France to change its system of government was, that while it subsisted, no other system was safe.

As to the fate awaiting the emigrants, if unsuccessful, they knew it, and had made up their minds for what might happen, undismayed and fearless of events, No less than a force of 500,000 men had been mentioned as requisite for the subverting of the French republic. Such a force would be highly ac ceptable to every one that sincere. ly wished for a suppression of the enormities that had so long afflicted France and menaced all Europe; yet a more moderate number would suffice for that purpose, and exonerate this country from the unhappy necessity of lavishing so much blood and treasure for the accomplishing of so desirable an end.

Mr. Dundas was supported by Mr. Burke, who declared it was more for the honour and benefit of the emigrants to accept of this opportunity of recovering their just rights, than to linger away their lives in banishment and dependence. He then spoke with his usual asperity of the proceedings and character of the French, against whom the coalition of all governments was, in his opinion, fair and lawful, as the foes of those civil and religious rights hitherto enjoyed in the worst of times, and through all the vicissitudes of political events, by the various classes of society, without disturbance or fear of deprivation. Under pretext of asserting the liberties of mankind, they sought the extension of their dominious, and the increas

of their influence and power, in order, at the same time, to introduce everywhere a conformity to their destructive precedents.

To these charges Mr. Sheridan replied, that it merited an enquiry, how far the iniquities of which the French had been guilty, were to be ascribed to the character and disposition of the natives of France, or to the sentiments and examples they had imbibed and copied from their former government.

Other members spoke for and against the bill; which was carried after a long and tedious contest.

It was opposed in the House of Lords, on the same ground as in that of the Commons. Among other arguments, it was urged by Lord Albemarle, that it was bad policy to collect, under the same standard, men of different opinions on the very subject for which they were brought together. The French, who were to be enrolled for the service proposed, had emigrated at different times, and from different motives, and were rootedly averse to each other's senti

unfortunate people might have been discovered. Much had been held out by ministers about the little probability of Robespierre's continuing long in power but his fall would at no time accelerate the subversion of the French republic: it was founded on the consent and support of millions, and by no means depended on the life of one single man.

The Marquis of Lansdowne spoke after the Duke of Bedford. He warmly reprobated the idea of retaliation, and reminded the House of the consequences it had produced in America. Some of the emigrants, he noticed, had expressed their hope, that they would be joined in France by large numbers of the peasantry on the lands and estates formerly their own: but was it likely that men, who had so grievously felt the oppressions exercised upon the rural classes under the ancient government, would for. get them, in order to return to the arbitrary subjection and servitude in which they were held by their! former masters? He had lately conversed with persons of probity and information, who had, not long since, had occasion to travel over many parts of France; and they positively asserted that the country was in a more flourishing state of cultivation and the people in better circumstances than before the revolution. He concluded by declaring himself an enemy to the erection of barracks and the introduction of foreign armies.

Other Lords expressed themselves for and against the bill.

Lord Stanhope, in particular, took occasion to speak with great acrimony of the slight and contempt with which some persons of exalted

rank